Academic writing: cultural obstacles and interventions

Technical academic writing in Asia: obstacles and interventions

Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technology

Japanhttp://lawriehunter.com

No need to take notes :^o

You can download this powerpoint(and many more)

from

http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/or

lawriehunter.comor

slideshare.net/rolenzo

3

Dimensions of Media Object Compehensibility

Lawrie HunterKochi University of Technologyhttp://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/

KUT

Island of Shikoku

Background

1971~Maths instructorGuidance counsellorMaths teacher trainer

1987 Technical rewriter, Techwrite, Tokyo1990~ Freelance academic rewriter, Japan

1990~ Assoc. professor, English1993~ Assoc. professor, English, intercultural communication

1996~ Super translation teamJapanese construction ministryWorld Water Forum KyotoAdvertising industryMajor universities

1996~ founder, KUTEFL CALLEFL Critical thinkingESP technical writingEAP for engineers

1998~ Referee, CATaC confs1999~ Editorial team, JALTCALL confs2004~ Reviewer, Web Based Communities, CALL, IJLT, etc.

Hunterthe style dossier approach

RATIONALEKUT scenario

Since 2002: Japanese government scholarships for foreign students in technical doctoral programmes.

! the foreign students are required to publish

2+ refereed papers and a dissertation in English

demand for new technical academic writing courses

Hunterthe style dossier approach

RATIONALE

Applicants are screened for academic English knowledge and skill,

BUT1. There are no extensions in the 3 year programme 2. Research topics are highly granular. 3. Technical RP writing genres are highly granular.

further L2 acquisition to the point of near-independence during the study period is NOT a realistic strategy.

Need for a pragmatic approach.

KUT scenario

7

Design Scenario

ESPESP

EAPEAP

EAPHUMANITIES

EAPHUMANITIESTAWTAW

EMedEMed ELawELaw EZ...EZ...

Technical Academic Writing

Design Scenario

Hayles 2012 cites Hamilton 1991:

Percent of science papers never citedwithin 5 years:

____%

Percent of humanities papers never citedwithin 5 years:

____%

Design Scenario

Hayles 2012 cites Hamilton 1991:

Percent of science papers never citedwithin 5 years:

22.4%

Percent of humanities papers never citedwithin 5 years:

93.1%

How does academic writing differ in various cultures?

How do we set global standards?

Is there a problem of English as the lingua franca of academia?

Technical academic writing in Asia: obstacles and interventions

EAPEAP

cultural variationcultural

variation

global standards

global standards

ELF: problems?

ELF: problems?3

2

1

How does academic writing differ in various cultures?

For engineers, not so much.

TAW* is1. formulaic2. data-centered3. graphically scaffolded (equations, graphs, charts)

*TAW = technical academic writing


variationTechnical academic writing in Asia: obstacles and interventions

Asian culture: perceptions

1. Some Asian cultures (esp. former British colonies) tend towards more use of rhetorical devices.

2. Rhetorical devices seen as a mark of erudition


variation

Asian culture: perceptionsConfucian cultures

1. Citation:a. more frequentlyb. more valued ['good quoting' is a sign of erudition]

2. Acceptance of authority-tendency to overclaim others' findings

in summary/abstraction exercises

3. Admiration of extended sentences-difficulty with orchestration of

own logical structures


variation

LEARNER CULTURE: production techniques

1. Tendency to over-emphasize generation of text from own grammar knowledge

tendency to undervalue working from language models.

2. Tendency to link everything.


variation

201X Culture-a recent development


variation

1

201X CULTURE: life in a low-text world

Twitter! SMS! Blogs! Like! Unfriend!

Intensifying problems:

1. Excessive terseness

2. "Optimism" about communication (whatever)

3. Step skipping in persuasion

4. Life is troublesome = can't be bothered


variation

grammar/surface features

usage/convention

document format

argumentsupporting claim

18

Possible approaches2. layer view

research design/results

most TAW writers start writing here

(simulacrum of argument)

RP language generation should start here

most TAWprograms work here

19

TAW best practice

Niche languageacquisition to near-independencein TAW

Writing workfocusing on argument andinfo-structures

Training in the use of language models:Style Dossier

Preparationfor work withan editor

Preparationfor work witha mentor


variation

21

Interventions


variation

22

Interventions1. editor as instructor

2. information designer as instructor

3. logician as instructor

4. learner as client


variation

23

Intervention 1: editor as instructor


variation

1. Editor as instructor

a. Tasks: analysis, repair => demonstrate

b. Rewrite tasks to perfection

c. Use checklists of own LF* problems

d. Style dossier

* language features, lexical items crucial to a given communication move in TAW


variation

Dossier collection tasksA. Research writing register (FAE) models

B. Informal discussion register models

C. Glossary


variation

Reframing: client:advisor => user:consultant

Language knowledge Language skills Task modes

Technical

Writing II

Language structures vs. information structures

Text structures: G-S, P-P-S, ....

Registers

Using text structures

Summarizing

Data commentary

Using lexical units to show info structuresEditing through a checklist

Write-edit-rewrite (uncoded to coded)

Information structure mapping

Swales & Feak exercises

Dossier collection work

Research

Writing

Ambiguity

Readability (stress position, topic position)

Rhetorical moves: framing, relationships, cohesion

RP structure

RP lexical units

Language features in RP sections

Optimizing readability-subject-verb proximity

-single function for 1 unit of discourse

-emphasis at syntactic closure points

Avoiding ambiguity

Creating, maintaining cohesion

Use, application of register knowledge


Readability work


Dossier manipulation


variation

Reframing: client:advisor => user:consultant

Language knowledge Language skills Task modes

Technical

Writing II

Language structures vs. information structures

Text structures: G-S, P-P-S, ....

Registers

Using text structures

Summarizing

Data commentary

Using lexical units to show info structuresEditing through a checklist


Information structure mapping


Dossier collection work

Research

Writing

Ambiguity

Readability (stress position, topic position)

Rhetorical moves: framing, relationships, cohesion

RP structure

RP lexical units

Language features in RP sections

Optimizing readability-subject-verb proximity

-single function for 1 unit of discourse

-emphasis at syntactic closure points

Avoiding ambiguity

Creating, maintaining cohesion

Use, application of register knowledge


Readability work


Dossier manipulation

Claim: when we add dossier work, no additional knowledgeor skills are required


variation

From the editor/mentor POV:

1. Reviewer comments on language aspects of RPs are almost always vague.

a. mostly blanket comments b. few examples of problem types.

2. Reviewer feedback does not include confirmation of success vis a vis language features.


variation


1. "Style dossier" vetting of RPs as language models reveals a number of papers with significant problems with grammar, register and readability.

2. Journals compete heavily for significant content, and may overlook English problems when the content is significant and well data-ed – or when the author is well-known.

3. As well, multi-author papers are often patchwork.


variation

Men must be taught as if you taught them not, And things unknown propos'd as things forgot.

Pope, "Essay on Criticism" Pt. III. L. 15.

Editor POV interventioncultural

variationcultural

variation

31

Intervention 2: information designer as instructor


variation

2. Information designer as instructor

a. teach pattern recognition / metalanguage (naive, e.g. "looking at" marked parallel text)

b. coded feedback on tasks

c. non-linguistic approach to structure related LFs

d. Novakian concept mapping (relations highlighted)

e. Style dossier as essential, central


variation


a. teach pattern recognition / metalanguage (naive, e.g. "looking at" marked parallel text)


variation


b. coded feedback on tasks


variation

LEARNER CULTURE: production techniques

Rhetorical conflation

1. Logical narrative... in order to prove...... compared....

2. Reseach Paper narrative (formulaic, surface marked)

3. Claim narrative (argument)

[The above 3 forms are not differentiated in the learners' experience.]


variation

Editor POV

-antidote to rhetorical conflation

Teach discourse analysis as information analysis.

-learning to produce a language is largely a matter of actively hearing it*. This calls for appealing, attractive, "cool" input. Be shameless!

*and not analyzing it


variation

Core content Background Persuasion

Rhetorical structure

Information organization

Information structures

lawrie hunter


variation

Core content Background Persuasion

lawrie hunter


variation

Rhetorical structure

Information organization

Information structures

lawrie hunter


variation

40

Central message

Background information

Argument layer Target content discard

Knowledge structure layer avoid discard


variation

41

Structure Node content Link type

Argument

structureIndependent clauses

Rhetorical relations

(e.g. argument)

Knowledge

structure

Nouns

Noun phrases

Attribute, compare, classify,

sequence, cause-effect


variation

42

Intervention 3: logician as instructor


variation

3. logician as instructor

a. macro view:-argument-rhetorical devices-logic links

b. micro view:-language features impacting on TAW moves-conventions


variation

Learner culture: "whatever"

Tendency when reading to ignore markers of info-organization, info-structures, rhetorical devices

-results in misuse of markers when writing


variation


Learners tend to miss steps in argument chains.

E.g. "Ms. Walter's neighbor heard her smoke alarm sounding. He knocked on the door, but there was no answer. He called the police and the fire department. The police arrived first, and they knocked the door down."

Why did the police knock the door down?

-common: incomplete chains of argument


Teach pattern recognition:

e.g. find all the logic links in this abstract

e.g. find all the sentences without logic links


variation


In informal learner writing about own research:general-to-specific takes the form:

This reflects:

a. the template nature of the TAW RPb. that the RP format is a metaphor for argument


variation


Impact: this results in conference presentation structure:

-which is argument-wise a failure in a paper:

But what would be better?

Toulmin => modified Toulmin => Cmap discourse


variation

49

Intervention 4: learner as

client


variation

4. learner as client

a. Writing center:

DO edit student writing-but with coded feedback-clients must know curriculum

b. WC emphasis on learning-only edit small chunks, to perfection-learning in chunk x applied to chunk x+1


variation

201X Culture-a recent development


variation

201X CULTURE: life in a low-text world

Twitter! SMS! Blogs! Like! Unfriend!

Intensifying problems:

1. Excessive terseness

2. "Optimism" about communication (whatever)

3. Step skipping in persuasion

4. Life is troublesome = can't be bothered


variation

LEARNER CULTURE: self-perception

View of self as static vis a vis language

View of self as externally manipulated


variation

SSP students have three years to publish two academic research papers and write a PhD dissertation. (Please note that a paper and a dissertation require different kinds of writing.)

There are several strategies for EAP students to produce acceptable research papers:

1. Become a very good writer of academic English and write your own very good papers without help.

2. Become a pretty good writer of academic English, and get a native speaker to check your grammar.

3. Become a better, but still weak writer of academic English, and get a native speaker to do a complete rewrite for you.

4. Do not learn to write academic English well, and find a native speaker to 'ghost-write' your paper for you.

5. Steal parts of other researchers' papers and combine them to make your own paper.

Which strategies will work for you?

Class orientation handout

Editor POV: self-perception

Entry Setting Final user success

Strong enough

grammar knowledge and composition skill

Some


Insufficient


time constraints

latent development

minor/no development

Independent writer

Model-using independent writer

Model-using aided writer

Heavily aided writer

Ongoing mentored writer

Ghost-written writer

Self-assess strategy tool


1. In this kind of work, first the 'user' must know -the tools and objects involved-how to talk about them.

2. Second, time and again the user must articulate anew his/her coursethrough the strategy network from entry to final user success.

3. This ongoing rearticulation consists of -self observation of success and time constraints -calculation of learning objective achievement probability*.

4. Native rewriter resource availability/affordability are also key factors in deciding strategy.

*Not everyone will learn to write 'from scratch' well and even those who could learn to do so may not have sufficient short-term (or even long-term) time.


Editor POV: self assessmentDegree of mastery

1. awareness of a language feature (LF)2. articulate awareness of a LF

(can define, give example, identify)3. evaluative awareness

(can identify LF problems; can assess LF correctness)

4. editorial(can repair/refine LF instances)(can apply to problem solving where LF not present)

[Forms 1~4 are not differentiated in learners' experience.]


variation

Learner culture: self-management

I can't! Tendency to accept that independent successful writing performance is personally impossible.

Deadline: tomorrow! Tendency to underestimate writing process time.

Hope for the best! Tendency to finally 'just send' the paper.


variation

Self-managment scenario: learner as client

How do we set global standards?

In TAW the standards are already there,but they are not linguistic standards.

TAW standards hinge on quality offindings and accessibility of argument.

EAPEAP


variation

global standards

global standards

ELF: problems?

ELF: problems?3

2

1

Is there a problem of English as the lingua franca of academia?

EAPEAP


variation

global standards

global standards

ELF: problems?

ELF: problems?3

2

1

• McKnight history of RP• Robot scientist: future of RP / argument• Kowalski: computational linguistics as future

of argument BY HUMANS• Hayles' technogenesis and the evolution from

content orientation to problem orientation.

ELF: a problem that will go away?cultural

variationcultural

variationELF:

problems?ELF:

problems?

63

Work on ontology-based research writing * :reforming how scientific research is written/read.

“Use of Natural Language is a great hindrance when using computers to store and analyse data hence the growing importance of text-mining. We argue that the content of scientific papers should increasingly be expressed in formal languages. Is writing a scientific paper closer to writing poetry or a computer program?”

Daunting: robot scientist: ontology-based readability

EXPO: An Ontology of Scientific Research. Ross D. King & Larisa N. Soldatovahttp://www-tsujii.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/jw-tmnlpo/RossKing.pdf

64

Daunting: ontology-based readability


65

EXPO* and the Robot Scientist



66

EXPO* and the Robot Scientist

Work on ontology-based research writing * :reforming how scientific research is written/read.

Can humans now experience knowledge differently, thanks to machine interface work,i.e. through a formal language imposed for the machine’s sake?

Will this reform how we read? how we think?

What about LOT, the language of thought?



RegisterRegister FAEFAE

UsageUsage

DossierDossier

AbstractAbstractNominalizationNominalization

ParallelismParallelism

Readability

Readability

Communication moves

Communication moves

HedgingHedging

ClaimClaim

ArgumentArgument

ArgumentArgument

CitationCitation

ParaphrasingParaphrasing

PlagiarismPlagiarism

SummarySummary

CohesionCohesion

ConjunctionsConjunctions

Logic linksLogic links

CoherenceCoherence

• Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J.D. (2006) Re-examining the foundations for effective use of concept maps. In Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J.D. (Eds.), Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Concept Mapping.

• Hunter, L. (2009) A Decision Matrix for the Use of Mapping and Mapping Software. Presented at EuroCALL 2009. http://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/eurocall09/

• Graphical texts: http://thisisindexed.com/ http://graphjam.memebase.com/• Animated data: http://www.gapminder.org/

• Atkinson, D. (1999) Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context. Routledge.

References

Breeze, R. (2012) Rethinking academic writing pedagogy for the European university. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Glasman-Deal, H. (2010) Science Research Writing. Imperial College Press.Gopen, G.D. and Swan, J.A. (1990) The science of scientific writing. American scientist (Nov-Dec 1990), Volume 78, 550-558. Downloadable as a pdf from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jcgs/sci.pdfHayles, N. Katherine. (2012) How we think: digital media and contemporary technogenesis. University of Chicago Press.Hinkel, E. (2004) Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Hunter, L. (2009) How academic writing works. 2nd edition. Kochi University of Technology Press.Kowalski, R. (2011) Computational logic and human thinking. Cambridge UP.Suzuki, T. (1978) Words in context. Tokyo: Kodansha International.Swales, C. and Feak, C. (2004) Academic writing for graduate students 2nd edition. University of Michigan Press. Tifi, A.. (2010) The long way to deep understanding. Proc. of Fourth Int. Conference on Concept Mapping. J.Sánchez, A.J.Cañas, J.D.Novak, Eds.

Toulmin, S. (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press.

References

Sources

Banerjee, D. and Wall, D. (2006) Assessing and reporting performances on pre-sessional EAP courses: Developing a final assessment checklist and investigating its validity. Journal of English for academic purposes 5(2006) 50-69.

Ferris, D. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press.

Ginther, A. and Grant, L. (1996) A review of the academic needs of native English-speaking college students in the United States. Research monograph series MS-1. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Gopen, G.D. & Swan, J.A. (1990) The Science of Scientific Writing. American Scientist 78 550-558.http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/23947

Harwood, N. (2006) What do we want EAP teaching materials for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (2005) 149-161.

Hunter, L. Online resource for English for Academic Purposes:http://del.icio.us/rolenzo/eap

Koutsantoni, D. (2006) Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (2006) 19-36.

Liu, M. & Braine, G. (2005) Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. English for specific purposes 24 (2005)

Rowley-Jolivet, E. & Carter-Thomas, S. (2005) Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international conference setting. System 33 (2005) 41-64.

Swales, J.M.. and Feak, C.B. (2004) Academic writing for graduate students: essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.

Swales, J.M.. and Feak, C.B. (2001) English in Today's Research World: A Writing Guide. University of Michigan Press.

71

ReferencesManovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media. The MIT Press.Manovich, L. Blog. http://manovich.net/

Research via ontologies

Ian Horrocks http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/EXPO Ontology of scientific experiments http://expo.sourceforge.net/Soldatova L.N., Clare A., Sparkes A. and King, R.D. (2006) An ontology for a Robot Scientist. Bioinformatics

(Special issue ISMB) (in press). http://users.aber.ac.uk/lss/Soldatova.pdf Soldatova, LN & King, RD. (2006) An Ontology of Scientific Experiments. Journal of the Royal Society Interface (in

press)http://users.aber.ac.uk/lss/Inteface.pdfEXPO: An Ontology of Scientific Research by Ross D. King & Larisa N. Soldatova, Department of Computer

Science, University of Wales, Aberystwyth. http://www-tsujii.is.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/jw-tmnlpo/RossKing.pdf

Text approachesHunter L. (2005) Technical Hypertext Accessibility: Information Structures and Rhetorical Framing. Presentation at

HyperText 2005, Salzburg. http://www.lawriehunter.com/presns/%20HT05poster0818.htmText Nouveau: Visible Structure in Text Presentation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 11(4) pp. 363-379.

(text nouveau)WordbyWord http://www.core.kochi-tech.ac.jp/hunter/WordByWord/index.html (text nouveau)Ueta, R, Hunter, L. & Ren, X. Text usability for non-native readers of English. Proceedings, Information Processing

Society of Japan, Vol. 2003.7. Pp. 199-200. (phrase boundary marking)

72

ReferencesAlexander Christopher A pattern language.Brown, P. J. and Brown, H. (2004) Integrating Reading and Writing of Documents. Journal of Digital Information, Volume 5 Issue 1 Article No. 237, 2004-02-03. http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/72/118Brown, P. J. and Brown, H. (2003) Annotation: a step towards the read/write document. http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~pjbrown/annotation/ht03.psBrown, P. J. and Brown, H. (2005) Electronically Integrating the Reading and Writing of Documents: an Unexploited Aid to Education. http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~pjbrown/annotation/lugano_master.htmlJohn Seely Brown & Paul Duguid (1992) Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology Publications http://www2.parc.com/ops/members/brown/papers/stolenknow.htmlCarter, L.M. (2000) Arguments in Hypertext: A Rhetorical Approach. HyperText 2000. p. 85-02.Grow, G. (1994) The Writing Problems of Visual Thinkers. Visible Language, 28.2, Spring 1994, pp. 134 - 161.Kolb, D. (1998) Ruminations in Mixed Company: Literacy in Print and Hypertext Together. Outline notes of a talk for KMI at the Open University, July 1998.Kolb, D. Socrates in the Labyrinth: Hypertext, Argument, Philosophy. Eastgate Systems.Lave, J. Situated LearningPattern Languages web site. http://www.patternlanguage.comSadoski, M. & Paivio, M. (2001) Imagery and text. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Thackara, J. (2005) In the Bubble: designing in a complex world. MIT Press.Tosca, S.P. (2000) A Pragmatics of Links Journal of Digital Information, Volume 1 Issue 6 Article No. 22, 2000-06-27

73

ReferencesA graphical heuristic for argument in second language technical academic writing

Allwright, D. (2004) Where theory comes from, and what can happen to it: ‘bana’ influence via postgraduate courses in applied linguistics. GISIG Newsletter 16, November 2004.Chambers, A. (2007) Language learning as discourse analysis: Implications for the LSP learning environment », ASp [En ligne], 51-52 | 2007, mis en ligne le 01 décembre 2010, consulté le 09 janvier Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science 19, 29-52. Tifi, A. (2010) The long way to deep understanding. In Concept maps: Making learning meaningful. Proc. of 4th Int. Conference on Concept Mapping.2011. URL: http://asp.revues.org/483

74

ReferencesChun, D. M. and Plass, J. L. 1997. Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language learning and technology 1(1): 60-81.Elsayed, A. (2007) Machine-mediated communication: the technology. 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2006, 5-7 July 2006, Kerkrade, The Netherlands.Goldman, S.R., & Rakestraw, J.A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M.L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 311-335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Grow, G. (1996) Serving the strategic reader: cognitive reading theoryand its implications for the teaching of writing. Viewed June 30, 2007 at http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/StrategicReader/index.htmlHunter, L. (2005) Technical hypertext accessibility: information structures and rhetorical framing. Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, Salzburg, Austria.Kalyuga, S. (2006) Instructing and testing advanced learners: A cognitive approach. Nova Science Publishers.Mann, B. (1999) An introduction to rhetorical structure theory (RST).

http://www.sil.org/mannb/rst/rintro99.htmMohan, B.A.M. (1986) Language and content. Reading, MASS: Addison-Wesley.Nass, C. and S. Brave. (2005) Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. MIT Press.Plain English movement http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/index.htm (de-idiomatizing)

Academic writing: cultural obstacles and interventions

Education

Transcript of Academic writing: cultural obstacles and interventions